Our Post 9/11 World: What Might Have Been...

[Thanas]

Philosophy is the study of fundamental problems; ethics might be tangential or even detrimental to the study. Someone's ethnical system might seem horrendous (Middle Age Christian philosophers espouse horrendous morality, if you ask me), but it does not make them suddenly "no philosophers". It is also reasonable to conclude that during the study one can come to amoral or even antimoral viewpoints. It does not detract from the philosophy. Antimoral philosophies are a completely valid part of philosophy itself.

Again, this is a bit too broad for my taste. Plenty of people tackle fundamental problems without being philosophers. Philosophy is supposed to teach and guide, to better society. Not to destroy it.

[K. A. Pital]

Philosophy is supposed to teach and guide, to better society. Not to destroy it.

As a consequentialist utilitarian, I agree that most philosophers who support destroying society or support doing nothing (support the status-quo) are dreck which does not deserve the time spent on reading their mind's diarrhea. But philosophy is the process of acquisition and creation of knowledge, of which such is a legitimate part of. Nobody ever formally accepted that philosophy was supposed to "teach and guide for a better society", that is a purely moral imperative.

So while I think those are crap philosophers, in essence, I admit they are philosophers. They are my enemies. They can be smart, inventive and resourceful (c), I should never assume that their intellectual shit is stupid. Being evil does not mean being dumb, you know.

The fact that Rand has created a whole antihumanist intellectualist (sic!) current, which is easily spreading among the more well-off and educated sections of the populace speaks highly in her favor, as I see it. Her contributions were smart enough to become a creed for a significant section of the academia, a significant part of the intelligentsia and even infiltrate the echelons of power.

Randianism, like any radical philosophy, must be accepted, studied and understood, not dismissed out ouf hand.

[Thanas]

Philosophy is supposed to teach and guide, to better society. Not to destroy it.

As a consequentialist utilitarian, I agree that most philosophers who support destroying society or support doing nothing (support the status-quo) are dreck which does not deserve the time spent on reading their mind's diarrhea. But philosophy is the process of acquisition and creation of knowledge, of which such is a legitimate part of. Nobody ever formally accepted that philosophy was supposed to "teach and guide for a better society", that is a purely moral imperative.

No, it is what sets a philosopher apart from a sophist. Since antiquity, it is the cornerstone of what makes a philosopher.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, in the Socratic sense, the sophists are the ones who teach rhetorical and logical skills for gain (because they are getting paid) and because their students will profit from it in material terms (they'll become more powerful).

Rand's arguments are extremely disagreeable, but she wasn't really in it for the money, nor did she really claim that her students would become powerful by following her teachings.

Unless I'm missing something.